tv [untitled] January 5, 2014 11:00pm-11:31pm PST
>> how do you handle the drainage that is exterior to the structure? >> we have the permit water system and a membrane and it will have a series of drains, below the slab that will be connected to a sump pump and it will be a permanent watering system and we will make sure that the walls are designed for the build up of the hydrostatic pressure and the drainage will be collected under the slab. >> on your property? >> correct. >> thank you, commissioners >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, cory tea gue, this is a rear addition to the existing building that is primarily below grade and it was approved by our department on october 8th of this year and it did not require 311 notification, because it did fall under a
permitted rear yard structure under 136 c26 as mentioned the project sponsor did work cooperatively and proactively with the planning department early on to make sure that the design would meet the planning code, and the existing interpretation for that section. and again, to meet that, the new structure in the rear could not be more than three feet above the existing natural grade which this project does not and it could not be in the last 15 feet of the rear of the property which this is well far from. and again, this specific text of the code, does state that this is to be provided for the garages. and but it is for the slope lots and in the rear yard, and this the zoning administrator has consistently interpreted that this provision can apply for structures other than garages because he looked at how the structure was being used and the impact on the
massing and the rear yard is the same and you are basically working with a structure that is less than three feet above grade, just for additional context, generally, anything that is going to be three feet or less, within the required rear yard, whether it is a patio or something to that effect, generally does not trigger the rear yard rements or 311 notification, it was referenced that this project should be subject to section 136 c25. kind of what we called the pop out in the zoning district, the rear yard requirement is actually a little larger, than some other districts so we do allow for an additional pop out in the rear into the required rear yard. and up to additional 12 feet. and it could be property line to property line if it is one story or five foot set backs on property lines if you do two stories and that provision of the code does not apply because this is falling under 136 c25, it is our entertation that this
falls under 136 c126 because it is primarily below grade and no more than 3 feet above grade and additionally the roof of this feature will be used as usable open space, so again, reference to that section is not relevant for this property. and this project, providing the rear yard tree, and issue with the roots and any potential impact that is proposed in the development may have on those trees, the planning code and the residential design guidelines are actually completely silent on the issue of individual trees, and rear yards and property line issues and this is generally something that is worked out between private property owners, during the development process. and that concludes my presentation, and i am available for any questions that you may have. >> mr. teague the za allows certain types of uses if it is
a certain height, above the limited height above the natural grade, is that a written interpretation. >> no it is not a written interpretation. >> how would people know about it? >> well, some, we have interpretations that are or have just been through practice and have never been put into the written interpretation and some of those are in the process of being written and putting into the code, and interpretations over time, it could be a little one wildy and we are actually working on improving the interpretation and cleaning them up and adding more of these that have been practiced over time and have not been put into the code and i can't give a specific reason why this particular one has not been written into the code, but
it has been practiced >> previously or this one? >> this one. >> it does extend beyond 12 feet and just to look at it from this angle and if you wanted to apply the revisions, it would be only four feet too deep if it was subject to 136, 25 instead of 36. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners just as you inspect the building permit under the appeal, we did issue the site permit, on 22nd of october, 2013 and the addenda was submitted and it was partially through the review and so they do not have a permit yet to start the work and so no work has started as far as i can tell. >> and i am available for any questions? >> thank you.
>> >> is there any public comment? >> step forward. >> is there a way to show this? >> i have been. >> my name is michael barerman, i am the neighbor who looks at this addition and i came here not planning to speak, but in listening to what has been said i feel compelled to speak. we have lived in this property my wife has been there since 1967, i have been here since
1975. we are 25 feet from the property there, and there is one house between us and i found out about this for the first time two weeks ago. i mean, we were not notified and tell me because it is underground we don't have to be notified and there was a meeting of the neighbors and i was not notified about that. and that meeting was in april. and i found out in the last two weeks. since that time, i have talked to mr. lindsey and several occasions, and my wife and i visited with him and we looked at some of the plans some of the three feet that... and he said that three feet and it is now five feet. and, i am really unable to understand all of the permtations of 116, verses 117, those are not the right numbers, and i have not become familiar with them. and i need more time. and i would also like you to
story so i can see the extent of this addition, this is a view from my bedroom window and let me show you what my interpretation of it. (inaudible). >> who told you that it was going to be five feet rather than three? >> mr. lindsey. >> by the time that they get done landscaping it and everything else, it is five feet. >> i don't, i am not sure of that. but, i have heard that. >> and i would like to get more information and i request that the appellants request be granted for more time and study to be granted. thank you.
>> yes. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none, we can start with the rebuttal and the appellant has three minutes to rebuttal. >> i will just work with this and take the time. okay, again, my name is larry costelo and i am a conducting arborist and i am working with the appellant and the question that i am here to answer or to address at least is will there be an adverse impact on the trees from the project? and in my estimation is yes, there will be there will be an significant impact, here are the trees and there are four trees that are all along the
property line. and one is a large cypress and 49 inches and you can see it and i guess that i could point to it here. and again, two other, or three other smaller trees, and 9 inches, and 14 inches and another patsha and these are all along the fence line, the project is on the other side of the fence. >> in terms of spacing, of the trees along the fence line, the rectangle here is the project. and so, these are the four trees, this is the back of the house. and these trees are spaced right along the fence line, and in a series right next to the project. if you apply the standard methodology for identifying critical root zones for trees
and in terms of protecting trees, during construction. that the out and the large red circle, would represent the critical root zone that would be protected under the standard conditions, that would be the optimal protection for a tree that size, the interior blue line is where you start to get into the structural characteristics of the tree. and you can see both lines come across where the project will be, and so excavations will occur in that zone and this holds for the other trees as well. this is the next tree along the line. and again, the red circle, and identifying that zone, and it overlaps the construction or the excavation site, and the middle tree, the glossy privet does so even more so.
so the question as to whether there is going to be an impact, there is going to be a very high impact on two of the trees, a high impact on the second, or on the third tree and, then the cypress we don't know because we don't know where the roots are and nobody has established that. they could have done a letter of determination, david lindsey recommended it, and they didn't do it. there is no formal interpretation written down that says that the garage can be a living space. >> okay, we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> for the project and as the zoning administrator, clearly stated, the planning is filing when it comes to the property line trees and we are not, we are going to take all of the precautions when it comes to
the excavation, we have an arborist and they have their expert and my client is perfectly willing to invite their experts during that excavation, and we know a great deal about this site. the building, was completed in 2006. and we have pictures that clearly describe the cross section of the soil, and the 21 inches of planting soil, and the rest is bed rock, and the roots are on that surface, and on the top layer. and we will be doing the excavation, very cautiously, and we will have our soils engineer and our arborist review the conditions of the encroaching roots and this is not a planning issue, this is a issue of implementation of an excavation and my clients are going to a great deal of expenditure of hoping to be good neighbors, and we are doing a horizontal extension, and as the commission fung just
asked me how would you water proof that? very costly, exercise. and they want to do that to insure that they don't effect the light, ventilation and natural exposure of the backyard, they are doing it underground, perfect example of no good deed could be punished. >> could they have gone above feet? >> and apply for the variance? >> okay, so it is not... >> okay. >> although it is a fairly, long lot, i am not sure. >> okay. >> wait, i didn't ask, if you what to speak to that question. >> we could have built up the house, over the existing house, very easily. >> no i am talking about the in the rear yard, where the trees are. >> well what the trees are we could have done another kind of, yes, we could have done an addition in the back that is not where that one is that could have been 12 feet up. >> would it have to have.
>> closer to the existing house and we did look at that option, but decided that was not as good, for, and there are very nice views for everyone around and a lot of the houses are set in different ways and we could tell from doing the last project how important it was to maintain the house pretty compact on the site and so even the initial, design would maintain compactly on the site and that is why this time, again, we thought, okay, if we can go under ground it will really have the minimum amount of impact of effecting not just the next door neighbor and the neighbors uphill. >> as well as your client. >> of course. >> excuse me. i didn't see, is there a topographic survey? >> i do have, and when we submitted the project to planning it actually had a survey that showed the relationship of the building to
the existing survey. and some of these red lines that you can see here and is that going to work? sorry it is not very clear, so actually the existing grades of the site relative to the addition, you can see how close it is and how it is deeper than that three feet and at some point the building in the back touches the grade and that was included in the package and that was... >> and you are saying because i can't see anything. >> do you want me to pass it to you? >> that is okay, i have got that. >> any rebuttal? >> good evening, again and i just wanted to quickly touch on three foot, and five foot issue in terms of above grade and based on the plans that were approved, and a maximum of three feet above grade, at the roof line. and the proposal is also to landscape and actually put
grass and other veg taive materials on top of it and we don't regulate the height of the vegetation, whether it be trees or bushes or whatever and so if you include that height it could be five feet or higher to the vegetation, but that is not what the requirement is, it is to the roof line of the actual structure itself which is no more than three feet above grade and so i wanted to make that clarification and i did want to touch on the point that this is a very deep lot for the code and they would have the additional room to construct a horizontal and or vertical addition on the rear, and still be code compliant and then on top of that. >> without a variance. >> without a variance. >> and on top of that, beyond that, another 12 feet, for the 136, c25, pop out, that was referenced earlier and so there is the code potential to actually do a horizontal and
vertical addition in the rear that would be much more massive that is without looking at it within the context of the residential design guidelines, we would have to review that, i cannot say that would be approved to full maximum build out but there is potential within the code to build within the buildable envelope without going into the required rear yard and this proposal would be much less visible and less massive. >> it would be shorter, though, the addition? >> which addition? >> if you do a pop out t would be lifted to 12 feet. >> 2 would be lifted to 12 feet in depth but that is 12 feet beyond the rear line. >> 12 feet beyond the 45 percent? >> right. >> and which right now this proposal and the underground portion of it goes about, 16 feet, and beyond the required rear yard line, and so, it would be... >> and we referred this to on the other commissioners that the pop out will be a little
bit shorter and it could be two stories depending on whether you want to read it. >> it would not go as deep and it would be four feet less deep into the property but it would be potentially much higher. >> can could be. >> sure. >> okay. >> something else that was mentioned is a letter of determination. >> sure, i mean any time that there is an issue with the planning code that someone wants a determination, they can file for a determination to get it from the zoning administrator, and there was a statement that david lindsey, recommended that the sponsor do that, and i am not aware of that recommendation, and i have not been told of that recommendation and i have not seen it in the e-mail and i cannot speak as to whether or not that was a recommendation or not, obviously we felt comfortable moving forward with the permit without a letter of determination because this is an interpretation that we have used consistently in the past. >> your department would feel comfortable making a letter of determination, had they asked. >> theoretically, sure, if they
asked if they could do the permit that got approved, then we would have said, yes. >> okay. thank you. >> could you address the issue of the trees on the property, line, and the fact that it was represented that the code is silent as to the implications of those trees? >> all right, so the planning code and related policies that we may have kind of in coordination with dpw, we really only protect trees that are street trees or significant trees which are generally within ten feet of the public right-of-way in the front. or the landmark trees, there are a small number of trees in the city that have been landmarked by the city because they are large and significant trees beyond that and the planning code do not offer any protections or any guidelines, or guidance in general about how to deal with the trees in the rear yard. and as you can imagine, this is an issue throughout the city, where we have the trees that are on or near the property lines and how the private property owners deal with that
situation, and it is generally, left to them to figure out, because we just don't have any guidance, or any controls in the planning code or the design guidelines. >> just a technical question, the three feet measurement, above natural grade, occurs through the top of the wall. >> yeah. >> in the rear wall? >> yes, to the roof line of the structure. >> the roof level or the rear wall? >> with the three feet above grade, it is kind of like we measure the height of the building and we measure it out of the roof line in terms of the height above grade. >> their section shows top of the wall is not the same elevation as the roof line. >> the top of the wall? >> it is higher than the. >> yeah. you mean, the, there is a fence. >> there is a fence. >> no, there is like a curb. >> the configuration that they show in their section, >> okay. >> is that the exterior wall of
the rear, the top of that wall, is higher than the main roof line. where the plan is located. >> let me take a look at that real quick. >> so this is the section and this is the roof line, measurement here, with the vegetation on top, are you referring to this portion, and i am not sure where you are referring to it being higher than the roof line? >> you can see the edge and
there is a little something there, and i don't know what it is, because this is a, a concept drawing, verses just a working drawing. >> sure. >> and then you see that the roof is also concrete and you can see at the edge that there is a little something that pops up? >> almost like a very miniature parapet. >> or a curb or something, and i don't know how they want to detail that. the water intrusion, is that measured to that point? >> or is it measured to the roof? >> the main roof? >> it should be measured to any roof portion of that structure, and so it should be to that point as well. we don't measure the vegetation, but it should be the top point of that structure.
commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i would like to hear from the permit holders, because i believe that they are here. >> he has given us a letter. >> and the one that you submitted and i have read that? >> thank you. >> we actually have a new letter from the arborist that was given to us this morning. >> in response to what? the appellant's comments? >> yes, it was just... >> how long is it? >> it says that their arborist
is wrong and our ss right and they both disagreed in the original report. okay. >> it has been submitted, comments? >> and we, they do have the opportunity to build higher and i believe that my understanding commissioners is that if they built on one level, they can go from property line to property line, only at the second level does not require these set back,; is that correct?? >> only 12 feet back.
>> actually, i learned something new today, i never even heard of this. could i call my next addition a garage. except for the trees, i mean, i think that it is a very thoughtful design, for light and air for both the neighbors as well as themselves. the tree roots, if it is at the property line, are we saying that the tree roots are going down and the arborist here from the permit holder is not here to give us any representation other than what is submitted. >> they are saying that the tree roots are going laterally, because the soils conditions would not have allowed the root to go downward. >> because of the rock.
>> it is interesting and i concur, that this probably has a fairly minimal impact if you think about the issues that we normally hear at this board related to shadow, or a view or the blockage or things like that. and it... based on the issues of the appellant i don't see any reasons to revoke the permit, i think that the they
should continue to as they do their excavation, be carefully to be able to determine the root ball for the large cypres s, at this point i am not prepared to support the appeal. >> i, concur. >> no one has come up here to talk about the law and i am sure that there is many of a dispute in the courts but that is not what is before us.
that is the concern that i have here, but that may be resolved in another forum, to the extent that there is an issue, and a construction creates the issues. do we have a motion or the further comments? >> i will make the motion unless you would like to. >> i am willing to move that the appeal be denied and to up hold the permit on the basis that the planning determination on height is accurate and balanced of the issues that were raised are against a
co-compliant structure. thank you. >> the motion is then to deny the appeal and up hold this permit on the basis of the planning department's determination of it is accurate. and that the structure is code compliant? >> yes. >> hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. thank you. the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld on that basis. >> we are going to take a short break, five minutes.